Some ideas to fix the senate un-balance

[Genx87]

You really seam convinced rural America is more intelligent than urban America. I find this baffling.

That is what you got out of my response????? That is your bias coming through. Rural Murrica got us trump, they had the house. Imagine if the senate was non-existent or mob rule like the house?

My point, I want our govt and its policies to have a layer between the mob. The less direct control over the govt by the people the better. People advocating for mob rule think their opinions will remain the predominate or morally right forever. Things change, and they change quickly.

 

[soulcougher73]

That is what you got out of my response????? That is your bias coming through. Rural Murrica got us trump, they had the house. Imagine if the senate was non-existent or mob rule like the house?

My point, I want our govt and its policies to have a layer between the mob. The less direct control over the govt by the people the better. People advocating for mob rule think their opinions will remain the predominate or morally right forever. Things change, and they change quickly.

How is the inverse of this any different though? Minority groups changing opinions quickly etc and telling the majority of people what they can and cannot do?

It seems like you fear one, but why not the other?

 

[Genx87]

But the little dumb mob running the country doesn’t bother you? And when do you decide which minority mob gets to be in charge? Since once you go down the minority track it’s seemingly endless, where as with majority rule there is no one above the majority.

They may be blocking policies you desire. But the minority is not getting their policies through neither. It is almost like the two sides need to come to an agreement on legislation.

 

[Genx87]

How is the inverse of this any different though? Minority groups changing opinions quickly etc and telling the majority of people what they can and cannot do?

It seems like you fear one, but why not the other?

Because the founding fathers valued the ability of the minority to not be trampled by the majority? I'd much rather not allow mob rule in our govt. If the govt ceases to be functional to the will of the people. The people have a mechanism to change that. So far however, they seem unwilling to do such a thing. Perhaps the people like dysfunction more than whatever is considered advancement?

To flip this discussion. In what other context would you favor the majority to trample the minority?

 

[soulcougher73]

Because the founding fathers valued the ability of the minority to not be trampled by the majority? I'd much rather not allow mob rule in our govt. If the govt ceases to be functional to the will of the people. The people have a mechanism to change that. So far however, they seem unwilling to do such a thing. Perhaps the people like dysfunction more than whatever is considered advancement?

To flip this discussion. In what other context would you favor the majority to trample the minority?

I would always favor the majority getting what they want. As to me it’s no different than if the minority tramples the majority except in my way it makes sense.

 

[fskimospy]

Yes the founding fathers did think of what you think makes their opinions irrelevant. It is why they put in a mechanism to change the constitution. And IMO why they created the senate was to allow smaller states from being run over. The house is the mob rule side of our two house legislative branch. The Senate is there to slow down the mob and allow for more thought in the process. If we turn the senate into the house or eliminate it. We will have the big dumb mob running the country. And quite frankly, that terrifies the shit out of me.

1) The presidency is already there for that.

2) Most other developed countries have a unicameral legislature elected by popular vote. They are run by the 'big dumb mob' and it seems to work just fine. Frankly, it seems to work better. Why would America be uniquely incapable in that way?

3) The idea that small states would approve a constitutional amendment to limit their own disproportionate power is fanciful. They would use their same disproportionate amendment power to make sure that never happened. It's circular reasoning to justify a bad system by saying that we could change it by invoking another bad system that the same problem thwarts.

4) Who gives a fuck what the founding fathers thought. Seriously.

 

[Genx87]

I would always favor the majority getting what they want. As to me it’s no different than if the minority tramples the majority except in my way it makes sense.

Really, so you are ok with white majority trampling black and latino rights? Straight people trampling gay and trans rights? Learn something new every day.

 

[fskimospy]

Because the founding fathers valued the ability of the minority to not be trampled by the majority? I'd much rather not allow mob rule in our govt. If the govt ceases to be functional to the will of the people. The people have a mechanism to change that. So far however, they seem unwilling to do such a thing. Perhaps the people like dysfunction more than whatever is considered advancement?

To flip this discussion. In what other context would you favor the majority to trample the minority?

How do you feel about the minority trampling the majority? We are far closer to that with the current system than the other way around.

Like I said earlier, had the Democrats only won the popular vote by around 3 points or so in 2018 it's entirely possible that the Republicans would have had a filibuster proof supermajority despite losing the popular vote for the presidency, the house, and the senate. Doesn't that sound tyrannical to you?

 

[Genx87]

1) The presidency is already there for that.

2) Most other developed countries have a unicameral legislature elected by popular vote. They are run by the 'big dumb mob' and it seems to work just fine. Frankly, it seems to work better. Why would America be uniquely incapable in that way?

3) The idea that small states would approve a constitutional amendment to limit their own disproportionate power is fanciful. They would use their same disproportionate amendment power to make sure that never happened. It's circular reasoning to justify a bad system by saying that we could change it by invoking another bad system that the same problem thwarts.

4) Who gives a fuck what the founding fathers thought. Seriously.

1. There for what???
2. I don't give a fuck what other countries do.
3. No idea what you are responding to from my post.
4. I do, many other people do as well. Their ideas have lived for 250 years and are quite frankly forward thinking. Even by todays standards.

 

[soulcougher73]

Really, so you are ok with white majority trampling black and latino rights? Straight people trampling gay and trans rights? Learn something new every day.

I do not support those things. I would believe that is the minority you like controlling things that want to do those things.

 

[Genx87]

How do you feel about the minority trampling the majority? We are far closer to that with the current system than the other way around.

Like I said earlier, had the Democrats only won the popular vote by around 3 points or so in 2018 it's entirely possible that the Republicans would have had a filibuster proof supermajority despite losing the popular vote for the presidency, the house, and the senate. Doesn't that sound tyrannical to you?

In what way is the minority trampling the majority? When I think of minorities trampling of the majority. I think of South Africa, Iraq, Syria. You know, where minorities truly trampled the majority. Not getting your way is not being trampled upon. It means you need to come to the negotiating table. Or sell a msg better to the minority.

 

[Genx87]

I do not support those things. I would believe that is the minority you like controlling things that want to do those things.

You just said you favor the majority getting their way.

 

[fskimospy]

1. There for what???

There to offer a check on the House. That's what vetoes are there for.

2. I don't give a fuck what other countries do.

You really should! You claim you are concerned about the consequences of majoritarian 'mob rule'. You can see the consequences of that all over the world and things seem fine. Wouldn't that indicate your concerns are unfounded and should be rethought?

3. No idea what you are responding to from my post.

Your claim that we can amend the constitution to fix this problem is fanciful. The small states that benefit from disproportionate representation in the senate benefit similarly in blocking constitutional amendments.

4. I do, many other people do as well. Their ideas have lived for 250 years and are quite frankly forward thinking. Even by todays standards.

The fundamental system of government they set up was certainly decent for the time but by modern standards functions pretty poorly. Presidential systems such as ours are renowned worldwide for being prone to collapse into autocracy due to exactly this sort of issue - split electoral mandates and governmental dysfunction.

They've been dead 200 years. They thought it was fine to own people as property. They were great for their time, but they simply can't cut it today. It's time to move on.

 

[fskimospy]

In what way is the minority trampling the majority? When I think of minorities trampling of the majority. I think of South Africa, Iraq, Syria. You know, where minorities truly trampled the majority. Not getting your way is not being trampled upon. It means you need to come to the negotiating table. Or sell a msg better to the minority.

So to be clear you believe that a party having unified, filibuster proof control of the government despite getting fewer votes in all three elected parts of government would not be the minority trampling the majority?

Can you explain this?

 

[fskimospy]

You just said you favor the majority getting their way.

I think we both know what he's saying. In a democracy such as ours the majority should generally get what it wants on most issues. Not on all issues, as that's why we have constitutional protections for free speech, etc, but on most issues.

As it stands now, our system is breaking down because the electoral advantages that have been gifted to rural areas have become concentrated enough that one party has a legitimate shot at controlling the country consistently despite rarely getting the most votes. This isn't just bad public policy, it's corrosive to our system of government because it undermines its legitimacy.

 

[mect]

That is what you got out of my response????? That is your bias coming through. Rural Murrica got us trump, they had the house. Imagine if the senate was non-existent or mob rule like the house?

My point, I want our govt and its policies to have a layer between the mob. The less direct control over the govt by the people the better. People advocating for mob rule think their opinions will remain the predominate or morally right forever. Things change, and they change quickly.

What else would I get from your response? The primary distinguishing feature of the senate is that it increases the representation of rural America relative to urban America. What makes the House mob rule compared to the Senate other than one gives equal representation to all people while the other gives greater representation to rural states.

 

[Genx87]

There to offer a check on the House. That's what vetoes are there for.

Ok?

You really should! You claim you are concerned about the consequences of majoritarian 'mob rule'. You can see the consequences of that all over the world and things seem fine. Wouldn't that indicate your concerns are unfounded and should be rethought?

Are you talking about countries in the EU where burkas are banned? There are limitations on free speech. Minorities are put into ghettos? You were saying again?

Your claim that we can amend the constitution to fix this problem is fanciful. The small states that benefit from disproportionate representation in the senate benefit similarly in blocking constitutional amendments.

It can happen. We have done it many times before. But that requires selling a msg.

The fundamental system of government they set up was certainly decent for the time but by modern standards functions pretty poorly. Presidential systems such as ours are renowned worldwide for being prone to collapse into autocracy due to exactly this sort of issue - split electoral mandates and governmental dysfunction.

They've been dead 200 years. They thought it was fine to own people as property. They were great for their time, but they simply can't cut it today. It's time to move on.

Every form of democracy is subject to pressures to autocracy. Ours has survived to become the sole super power while others you envy fell into communism, fascism, or revolution. I don't find that fear a reason why ours needs to be changed.

 

[soulcougher73]

You just said you favor the majority getting their way.

How is that any different than the minority getting their way if they wanted that? Someone will have power. I just prefer it to be the majority as it’s a clearly defined thing, where as minority is not. Is minority the second smallest group, the overall smallest or the 12th smallest?

 

[Genx87]

I think we both know what he's saying. In a democracy such as ours the majority should generally get what it wants on most issues. Not on all issues, as that's why we have constitutional protections for free speech, etc, but on most issues.

As it stands now, our system is breaking down because the electoral advantages that have been gifted to rural areas have become concentrated enough that one party has a legitimate shot at controlling the country consistently despite rarely getting the most votes. This isn't just bad public policy, it's corrosive to our system of government because it undermines its legitimacy.

That is why I asked him in what other context would he support the majority trampling a minority? His response was straight forward. The majority should always be allowed to exert its will on the minority.

 

[Genx87]

So to be clear you believe that a party having unified, filibuster proof control of the government despite getting fewer votes in all three elected parts of government would not be the minority trampling the majority?

Can you explain this?

I just did, reread my previous msg. What you perceive as trampling is laughable imo. The minority is not enacting oppressive policy on the majority. It is blocking the majorities will, or at least slowing it down. Like our system was designed imo.

 

[Genx87]

How is that any different than the minority getting their way if they wanted that? Someone will have power. I just prefer it to be the majority as it’s a clearly defined thing, where as minority is not. Is minority the second smallest group, the overall smallest or the 12th smallest?

In the context of my response(black, gays) we can all agree the minority getting their way was a good thing right?
In further, what you perceive as the majorities will today may not be the majorities tomorrow. So be careful for what you wish. I can think of a few topics in the just last 15 years the left would complain about the majority trampling the minority because the whims of public opinion changed.

 

[soulcougher73]

That is why I asked him in what other context would he support the majority trampling a minority? His response was straight forward. The majority should always be allowed to exert its will on the minority.

And you prefer the minority to be able to do the same. It’s really no different except a majority is a defined thing.

 

[fskimospy]

Ok?

So a body already serves as the check you claim you wanted. If it’s already there what is your complaint?

Are you talking about countries in the EU where burkas are banned? There are limitations on free speech. Minorities are put into ghettos? You were saying again?

Oh for fuck’s sake, you can’t be serious. The US where we imprison our citizens forever without trial? Where we murder our own citizens without due process? Etc, etc. Stop with this nonsense.

The rest of the developed world is, much like the US, has a decent record on human rights but it’s certainly not perfect. Regardless you know as well as I do that much of the rest of the developed world functions just fine without a senate counterpart. Shame on you for stopping to that level of bullshit.

It can happen. We have done it many times before. But that requires selling a msg.

I am not aware of a single constitutional amendment that has been passed which decreased the disproportionate power of rural minorities. Which one are you referring to?

Every form of democracy is subject to pressures to autocracy. Ours has survived to become the sole super power while others you envy fell into communism, fascism, or revolution. I don't find that fear a reason why ours needs to be changed.

I would recommend reading the political science literature on presidential systems like ours and how they are fundamentally unstable. It’s compelling. Not only is the historical evidence for their instability strong (nearly every presidential system other than the US has collapsed into autocracy) but the US is now showing the same signs as the others that collapsed before us.

The warning signs are here already. It’s important to learn the lessons of history before it’s too late.

 

[soulcougher73]

In the context of my response(black, gays) we can all agree the minority getting their way was a good thing right?
In further, what you perceive as the majorities will today may not be the majorities tomorrow. So be careful for what you wish. I can think of a few topics in the just last 15 years the left would complain about the majority trampling the minority because the whims of public opinion changed.

Same can be said of minority opinions. That is not a well reasoned response in defense of.

I’m still waiting for a definition of what a minority is in regard to the discussion and when you should let that particular minority group have power.

 

[mect]

In the context of my response(black, gays) we can all agree the minority getting their way was a good thing right?
In further, what you perceive as the majorities will today may not be the majorities tomorrow. So be careful for what you wish. I can think of a few topics in the just last 15 years the left would complain about the majority trampling the minority because the whims of public opinion changed.

That's the thing. Gay's and blacks didn't get increased equality because a minority wanted it. They didn't begin to make progress until a majority wanted it, in other words until they had enough allies to begin making changes. The funny thing is that you're answering your own question about how a minority slowing things down is oppressive. Look no further than equal rights and gay marriage for your examples. If the supreme court hadn't ruled, there would still be states where gay marriage wasn't allowed, with no end in sight, as there is no way the current senate would allow legislation for national gay marriage to get through.

Edit: And with the republicans control of the senate and their determination to stack the courts, the one remaining check is being eroded. In a few years, we will likely no longer have a court that would be willing to stand in defense of something like gay marriage despite an overwhelming majority of Americans supporting it.